Not upheld: section 75 claim handling; limitation period defence complaint against Omni Capital Retail Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B obtained a fixed sum loan from Omni in February 2018 to pay for spray foam insulation installation. In September 2025, over seven years later, Mr B raised a section 75 claim alleging the installation was not carried out with reasonable skill and care and that assurances about the product were misrepresented. He sought a full refund plus removal costs. Omni rejected the claim, citing the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980. The ombudsman upheld Omni's rejection, finding it fair and reasonable to require section 75 claims be raised within the statutory limitation period, and that no exceptions under the Limitation Act applied to extend the time limit in this case.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while section 75 provides statutory protection to consumers, it is fair and reasonable to require that claims be raised within the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980. The alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation causes of action accrued in February 2018 when the contract was entered into and the installation occurred. The claim was not raised until September 2025, exceeding the six-year period. The ombudsman considered whether exceptions under sections 14A and 32 of the Limitation Act applied but found insufficient evidence to support extensions. Section 14A (special time limit for negligence) would not apply to breach of contract claims under section 75. Section 32 (fraud, concealment, or mistake) was not adequately evidenced. The ombudsman also noted evidential challenges and the removal of the foam would have made establishing the issue difficult even if the claim had been timely.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website